ROBERT C. BAKER, ESQ., BAR ID #49255
MELISSA S. BLUESTEIN, ESQ., BAR ID #130055
PHILLIP A. BAKER, ESQ., BAR ID #169571
BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
2850 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90405
Telephone: (310) 399-0900
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQ., BAR ID #47480
6622 Benham Way
Sacramento, California 95831-1143
Telephone: (916) 427-1600
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQ.
DANIEL P. LEONARD, ESQ.
BAILEY, FISHMAN AND LEONARD
66 Long Wharf
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Telephone: (407) 687-3700
Attorneys for Defendant
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHARON RUFO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
FREDRIC GOLDMAN, etc., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. SC 031947;
C/W Case No. SC 036340;
C/W Case No. SC 036376
LOUIS H. BROWN, etc.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,
Defendant.
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE OPINIONS OF WITNESSES CONCERNING THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS AS TO THE INNOCENCE OR GUILT OF ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON
[6 of 15]
TRIAL DATE: Sept. 17, 1996
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
DEPT: "L"
LOUIS H. BROWN, etc.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,
Defendant.
DISCOVERY AND MOTION CUT-OFF: 6/15/96
TRIAL DATE: 9/17/96
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Defendant, ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, hereby moves this Court for an Order instructing plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel not to refer to or interrogate any lay witness concerning, comment on, or attempt to suggest to the jury in any way, any reference as to whether or not defendant is responsible for the crimes of June 12, 1994.
This Motion will be further based upon the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, on the papers and records on file herein, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this Motion.
DATED: August 20, 1996
BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
By /s/
ROBERT C. BAKER
Attorneys for Defendant
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. INTRODUCTION.
Throughout the commencement of discovery in the pending action, plaintiffs' counsel has sought on numerous occasions, to illicit to whether or not the witnesses believed that ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON was responsible for the crimes of June 12, 1994. The inquiries by plaintiffs' counsel of witnesses asking various witnesses of their personal opinions, concerning the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson, were almost without exception relayed to the T.V. tabloids who dedicated entire programs to someone's opinion as to whether or not Mr. Simpson was guilty or innocent. It was clear during the discovery phase of this case, that plaintiffs' counsel were playing to the media, and were searching for sound-bites in an effort to infect the jury pool. It is defendant's concern that plaintiffs may attempt to refer to or draw out such irrelevant opinions to try to taint the potential jury pool during the progress of this litigation. Such references are irrelevant and prejudicial and thus, should be excluded.
2. EVIDENCE PRESENTED RELATING TO WHETHER DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE CRIMES OF JUNE 12. 1994.
California Evidence Code, Section 350, states as follows:
"No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence."
In the pending action, such references as to whether lay witnesses believed defendant committed the crimes of June 12, 1994, will be irrelevant to the subject litigation. Rather, the emphasis of this litigation is the presentation of evidence before the jurors so that the jurors will be able to evaluate the evidence and come to their own determination. Any reference by any witnesses as to their beliefs of ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON's responsibility or lack of responsibility for the crimes of June 12, 1994, is irrelevant to the pending lawsuit and should be precluded.
3. PROBATIVE VALUE OF EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE AFOREMENTIONED OPINION IS OUTWEIGHED BY THE PROBABILITY THAT ITS ADMISSION WILL CREATE SUBSTANTIAL DANGER OR UNDUE PREJUDICE AND HARM.
California Evidence Code, Section 352 states as follows:
"The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value substantially is outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury."
Evidence concerning such opinions as to lay witnesses to whether or not ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON is responsible for the crimes of June 12, 1994 is prejudicial, and has absolutely no relevancy to the pending action.
Plaintiffs ought to be required to present such evidence before the jury and have the jurors determine whether or not they believe ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON committed the crimes of June 12, 1994. Any references to opinions of various lay witnesses proffered during the course of the Trial will only confuse the jury as to the true issues involved in this case.
4. CONCLUSION.
Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that this Court preclude any and all references by lay witnesses to whether or not defendant, ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, is responsible for the crimes of June 12, 1994.
DATED: August 20, 1996
BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
By /s/
ROBERT C. BAKER
Attorneys for Defendant
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON